Gaza blockade is illegal!!!

coming from the guy who makes a thread whenever a tiny latin american nothing country decides to back the imaginary state of palestine.

tell me how any sort of decree or treaty not involving israel is going to create a palestinian state in the west bank alone. it's not going to happen.

another thing...i'm shocked you aren't on "my side" with regarRAB to this pseudo-statehood drive. what about your cousins in gaza? they should just be ignored?
 
The point is that your opinion isn't as absolute among the legal community as you espoused it to be.

I also find that those law students who share your opinion tend to be the ones with the lowest level of experience in the realm of international law. No surprises there, since why would you focus on something you dislike? What this does tell me though is that these opinions are not necessarily formed through knowledge and experience working with it, but rather they tend to be opinions held by said students prior to even going to law school. So I would also question the underlying causal assumptions of your statement.



If the US approved that would still fall under international law and pressure mechanisms and Israel absolutely has been forced to respond to such pressures in the past. To dismiss international law and pressure is to dismiss a very real player in the game. Just because you don't like it (since it goes against your personal stance on this particular issue) doesn't make it any less real.
 
what mistake was that?

i find it funny that turkey keeps openly admitting its involvement in the floatilla. technically, that could be considered an act of war against israel.
 
on the flip side, just because you have an interest in international law does not mean it is at all effectual. learning about its dynamics in a law school does not all of a sudden give a student proof of its existence. the same goes for working in the field.

is it nice that there is an end goal with the formation of international organizations of having cooperating meraber nations? sure. but it cannot be forced.

my point is, that no matter how much you seem to love the concept, the fact of the matter is that it has been budding for 70 some-odd years and never fully bloomed. there is no driving force compelling nations to sacrifice their own desires for a greater good.

ergo, international law is bullshit.
 
When will turkey apologize for the Armenian genocide? Not to mention Cyprus and their treatment of the KurRAB. Two wrongs don't make a right, but what a bunch of hypocrites. All of this is nothing but a power move by turkey in their attempt to become a bigger power in the middle east. They Could care less about gaza. After all if they really wanted to give aid all they have to do is set sail to Ashdod.
 
[y]B6sAEYpHF24[/y]
the annotations don't lie; they throw a flasrabroadang on the boat. that's not the same as throwing a grenade but they're visibly corabative
 
i couldn't care less if the palestinians get a state or not. but lets be realistic here: no real pressure would be put on israel. why? because the united states and europe are generally on their side in this one.

besides, what kind of pressure could israel be expected to face when the real issue (gaza) is being ignored. this is just a publicity stunt and an excuse for terrorism after the vote gets shot down.
 
International Law .... LOL.

International Law is totally dependent on who and how much a particular country gives a shit. "International Law", like all other law, is only as good if force is applied to back it up and right now, there is very little will (and money) to back Palestine.
 
They are both on equal footing. They are both the scum of the fucking bowels of this Earth. Both sides are far more willing to raise their children in a state of war than in a state of peace.

The elimination of that particular land mass would be an overall blessing to this planet just for the sudden elimination of the war mongering people it would eradicate.

ON BOTH SIDES!

As a human animal, I am erabarrassed for my species that we still take sides on this, support one side or the other or have not risen up in unity and demanded either a peaceful resolution or a final solution.

A state of war that has lasted 60-70 years is an abomination to all human beings who have even a single peaceful bone in their body.

As far as I am concerned, cut BOTH sides off. Let the crows declare the winner.
 
This entire ctiricism of international law screams "I don't really understand it"

International law has had a HUGE impact on the way that the global political and economic system works. The fact that certain aspects of it like say the UDHR hasn't been lived up to by all coutnries does nothing to go against this. The simple fact that we have the UDHR and the simple fact that we care enough to talk about it in and of itself has altered the international political climate and has altered actions.
 
i understand it perfectly. it seems that you don't understand that international law's "jurisdiction" is as far reaching as is voluntarily allowed by each individual state involved in a dispute/transaction.
 
who cares? israel should've blasted them for breaking the blockade. that's an act of war.

erdogan should lay low. i can't wait for the day when he wakes up with his balls in his mouth.
 
i've noticed that for someone who is quick to accuse someone else of never seriously engaging a topic, you never have actually done so yourself when asked.
 
Back
Top